- From: Doug Turner <dougt@mozilla.com>
- Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 07:48:28 -0700
- To: Scott González <scott.gonzalez@gmail.com>
- Cc: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, "whatwg@whatwg.org" <whatwg@whatwg.org>, JOSE MANUEL CANTERA FONSECA <jmcf@tid.es>, Andrei Popescu <andreip@google.com>, "Carr, Wayne" <wayne.carr@intel.com>
That is different -- Hixie can chime in. I think the idea is that if you have and dom event handler, you should also have an onXXXX event handler attribute. Its meaning is less defined. I do not think it means that if ondevicemotion exists, that means you will always see device motion events. Doug On May 9, 2012, at 7:45 AM, Scott González wrote: > There was a related discussion on the mailing list: http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2010-November/029252.html > > I also found a message from Hixie to me, related to that thread: "I agree entirely that if an event has a use case, it makes sense for it to have an event handler attribute." > > > On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Doug Turner <dougt@mozilla.com> wrote: > > On May 9, 2012, at 3:14 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > > > On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 5:59 AM, Doug Turner <dougt@mozilla.com> wrote: > >> Where was that discussion? > > > > This came up at the WebApps F2F and there was general agreement that > > if we added new events adding new event handler attributes would make > > sense. > > Was there any notes taken? > > > > Feature detection of some kind is useful as forcing people to > > do UA sniffing leads to badness. > > I am not arguing that it shouldn't be done. I just don't think it as important as most people. For example, even if the device is present, it may be off or not responding. In that case, you'll have a feature that tests positive and never receive any events. >
Received on Wednesday, 9 May 2012 14:49:15 UTC